Creeping sanity?

Here is an Associated Press story similar to The Nature Conservancy press release that I mentioned recently.

Note that this story is headlined "USFW purchases 1,800 acres for waterfowl". Here's the first sentence:
----
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced on Tuesday that it is acquiring 1,800 acres of land for the Cache River National Wildlife Refuge with $2.43 million in Federal Duck Stamp funds to benefit waterfowl and a host of other wildlife species including the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.
----
Ok, so now the Ivory-bill doesn't even make the headline, nor does it get top billing in the body of the article. Why is that?

In my opinion, this wording is very carefully chosen, and it provides a crude barometer of the level of public euphoria about the Ivory-bill. If we had conclusive proof of an Ivory-bill, I think an AP article on the same land acquisition would be worded very differently.

It looks like the Ivory-bill is being "eased out the door" here. If time continues to pass without conclusive proof, I think similar stories will be written that don't even mention the Ivory-bill.